K SIVRAMA KRISHNA PRASSAD Vs. STATEOF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lodging a caveat by the petitioner herein in the court of Principal District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District lead to filing a private complaint in C.C.No.1163 of 2004 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru for the offence under Section 500 IPC which was taken on file and issued process by the magistrate. On issuance of process the petitioner who is accused filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings initiated against him.

(2.) The compliant allegations briefly stated as under: On complainant receiving caveat petition filed by the accused along with affidavit making wild allegations touching the character, conduct, image and reputation of the complainant and his father and another respondent with an evil intention to defame the complainant and damage the reputation knowing fully well that the allegations made by in the caveat petition are false and baseless, the compliant has been field. The allegations made in the caveat petition are as under:

(3.) The accused is not justified in making such allegations touching the character and morale of the complainant. Since the caveat petition filed by the accused has been published, the reputation of the complainant has been badly damaged in the eye of public and the public are viewing him with suspicion. Therefore, he got issued legal notice to the accused on 07-08-2004 calling upon him to tender unconditional apology and also pay damages for making baseless allegations and painting the complainant and his father as thieves. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.Rama Chandra Raju contends that allegations made in the caveat petition falls under Exceptions 5 and 9 to Section 499 IPC which are made in good faith to protect the interest in the suit schedule property. Therefore, prosecuting the petitioner for the offence is nothing but abuse of process and the same is liable to be quashed. Further, he contends that civil court has not given any finding with regard to defense set up by him, namely, cheques which were returned were stolen and on which basis the suits were filed. Therefore, until the civil court gives a finding that the defense set up by the accused is false, prosecuting him for the offence does not arise and the proceedings are liable to be quashed.